Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction:

Is CLIL the right approach?

Maria Xanthou
University of Cyprus

Abstract
This paper aims to highlight current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction. Scholars in the field
of linguistics posit that the learner needs to access a target word’s both semantic and morpho-
phonological form in order to achieve deep vocabulary learning. Research indicates the importance of
activating prior knowledge, learning vocabulary in context, active processing of L2 vocabulary and being
provided with multiple exposures to a word thereby approaching incremental vocabulary learning. The
results of an experiment show a significant effect of CLIL (p= .000) on L2 vocabulary knowledge. The
One-way ANOVA demonstrates that the CLIL group outperformed the group which was exposed to the
word list method, and the group which was taught the curriculum subject through the medium of L1.
Observation data confirm that CLIL presents target words through rich and meaningful content being
systematically organised and recycled with positive outcomes on vocabulary acquisition.
Keywords: vocabulary learning, context, incremental learning, CLIL (content and language integrated
learning), word list

1. Introduction
The educational aims of the European Union create many challenges for EFL courses
such as increasing the exposure to the foreign language. Teaching a subject matter
through the medium of a second or a foreign language, addressed as Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), might be an ideal means of enhancing foreign
language proficiency by providing opportunities to the L2 learner to encounter and use
the foreign language in meaningful contexts.
The Common European Framework suggests “participating in courses in other
curriculum subjects which employ L2 as a medium of instruction” (Council of Europe
2001: 2). In this vein, the Commission of European Communities communicates in its
Action Plan 2004-2006 that most pupils need to be able to “study at least some of their
curriculum through the medium of a foreign language” (2003: 11).
The current study examines the impact of CLIL on developing L2 vocabulary
knowledge.

Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and © 2010 GALA

Teaching: Selected Papers
460 Maria Xanthou

2. Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning

CLIL refers to ‘any form of language education in which subject matter is taught in a
second or foreign language. It could be called bilingual education…immersion and
multilingual education’ (Van de Craen 2001: 210). The ‘acronym is a synonym of
Content-Based Language Teaching’ (ibid: 209) which has been rephrased. Content-
based instruction in L2 has been put into practice in Canada’s immersion education
from the 1970’s onwards and it was applied in the 1980s in the United States to
transition children out of their home language into English (Schleppegrell, Achugar and
Oteíza 2004). The approach has been gaining prominence around the world the last two
decades (Chapple and Curtis 2000).
CLIL approach is a fast expanding phenomenon in Europe as in the rest of the world.
School systems over Europe have adopted some form of CLIL, following the European
recommendation (Van de Craen, Ceuleers and Mondt 2007). The Eurydice survey
(2005: 55) reveals that “the initiatives in the field of CLIL have increased in recent
years”. CLIL type provision is part of mainstream school education in most countries at
primary and secondary levels.

3. Studies revealing foreign language gains

Evidence suggests that CLIL can be an effective approach for language teaching at all
stages of instruction, from primary school to university level in both second and foreign
language teaching settings. Short (1994) and Stoller (2004) report that students being
involved in such courses exit the courses with improved language abilities and content-
area knowledge gains.
Collectively, the results of research findings suggest that CLIL may have positive
outcomes on learners’ L2 development. However, scientific research regarding CLIL
implementation is still at an embryonic stage. Gramkow (2001) notes that more
investigations into the effects of CLIL teaching are needed i.e., more dissemination of
experiences and results. Similarly, Wesche (1993: 74) stresses the need for carrying out
more longitudinal studies related to content-based learning in language in order “to
confirm linguistic, academic and attitudinal outcomes of content-based approaches”.
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 461

4. L2 vocabulary development
Vocabulary development is “arguably central to language acquisition and use”
(Zimmerman 1997: 17), so educators need to use an effective approach in promoting L2
vocabulary development. Searching for the prospect of an effective approach to
vocabulary learning, a deeper knowledge about how people learn words needs to be
sought. Therefore, in what follows, what vocabulary learning involves is described.
Learning target words through word pairs is discussed and their possible relation to
deep comprehension is examined. The importance of activating prior knowledge is
stressed and learning vocabulary in context is presented as an approach taking this
principle into consideration. The importance of active processing when learning L2
vocabulary, as well as the significance of multiple exposures to a word, is raised and the
subsequent need for adopting an incremental vocabulary learning process is expressed.
Learning a subject through the medium of the L2 seems to be an approach satisfying the
aforementioned learning conditions.

4.1 Describing vocabulary knowledge

Vocabulary learning is deeper and more complex than just memorising a word’s
meaning. Full understanding of a word includes several aspects of word knowledge.
Radford et al. (1999) present a model illustrating lexical entries. This model postulates
that a lexical entry consists of its lemma and its form information. Lemma information
involves meaning and syntax. Form involves morphological information and
phonological forms this lemma can take in speech. CLIL environments expose the
learner repeatedly to both the semantic form of the target word and its morpho-
phonological form, thus strengthening this relationship. Similarly, Jiang (2002) explains
that when a root word enters the mental lexicon, this lexical entry involves two
components: The lemma component and the lexeme component. The first includes
semantic and syntactic information whereas the second one contains morphological and
formal information.
Traditional approaches do not seem to offer all the information required for learning
a target word. The data of this study (from the vocabulary pre-test) revealed that
primary school children confuse L2 words with others that are phonetically or
morphologically similar, e.g., they confused coal with goal, plain with plane, hut with
hat, plants with plans, destruction with instruction, heat with hit and head with hate,
trunk with drunk, parade with pirate, poultry with poetry, cypress with surprise, etc.
462 Maria Xanthou

4.2 Word pairs and The ‘Depth of processing hypothesis’

The traditional approach to vocabulary learning favours systematic vocabulary learning
which is based on lists of L2 words presented together with their L1 translations that
learners have to memorise. However, interlingual synonymy is very rare. The majority
of word pairs are not wholly synonymous in terms of cultural or grammatical aspects.
Connotation between the synonymous pairs may differ as well as collocation or register.
Therefore, presenting words in isolation does not provide adequate lemma information,
raising the risk of misunderstandings.
The “Depth of processing hypothesis” assumes that learners are more likely to
remember new words if mental processing is deep enough involving manipulation of
the new word (Craig and Tulving 1975: 268-284). Hence, unlike processes providing
superficial learning including rote repetition, deeper semantic processing allowing the
target word to be grouped with other conceptually related words might enhance learning
to greater extent. CLIL could be one way to succeed this.

4.3 Activating prior knowledge

Second language vocabulary acquisition research demonstrates the importance of
activating prior knowledge. Schmitt and Schmitt (1995) stress that an essential principle
which needs to be considered when designing vocabulary programmes is to incorporate
target L2 words into language that is already known. This is due to the formation of a
rich network of interwoven associations around old-established words. So, when new
words are integrated into this network, these associations enable their recall. This issue
of connecting new and known information is also stressed by Martin, Martin and Ying
(2002), Stahl (1983), and Stoller and Grabe (1993) who support that connecting the
target words to students’ already known words and concepts enables new vocabulary
learning. Therefore, the primary goal of vocabulary instruction should be to present new
concepts that can be applied to the student’s already existing knowledge. The CLIL
approach satisfies this condition.
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 463

4.4 Learning vocabulary in context

Learning vocabulary in context is an approach considering the “morphological,
syntactic, and discourse information in a given text” (Nation and Coady 1988: 102)
thereby exposing the learner to the total linguistic environment in which a word is
encountered and facilitating full understanding of a word (Nation 2001).
Comprehension of oral and written discourse takes place most likely when students
make meaningful connections between vocabulary and the contexts in which it is found.
CLIL instruction allows learning new vocabulary in the environment of meaningful
context.
Coady (1997) carried out a synthesis of research studies accumulating evidence that
exposure to meaningful and comprehensible language enhances vocabulary knowledge.
He reached the conclusion that “if the language is authentic, rich in content, enjoyable,
and, above all, comprehensible, then learning is more successful” (ibid: 286). Therefore,
it can be postulated that encountering the target word in contexts, such as the subject-
matter contexts provided by CLIL lessons, enhances vocabulary development. CLIL
methodology provides content-based language environments where contexts
demonstrate the pragmatic value of target words.

4.5 Active processing

Research review on vocabulary learning by Mezynski (1983) identified active
processing as an important factor associated with effective vocabulary acquisition.
When students learn by doing something involving target words in contexts, this makes
the process of learning active. CLIL seems to provide them with opportunities to
become actively involved with new L2 words through class discussions and other
content- and language-related activities.

4.6 Recalling the new word

Schmitt and Schmitt (1995) pointed out that another important principle that has to be
taken into account when designing vocabulary programmes is that of allowing
opportunities to the learner to recall the new words. CLIL allows this through various
activities, such as comprehension tasks and memory games which require learners to
produce the target words.
464 Maria Xanthou

4.7 Repeated exposures to target vocabulary

Providing several exposures to new words enables knowledge of the words to grow.
Nation (1990) reviewed several studies which found that learners need to be exposed to
five to sixteen repetitions in order to learn a new word. Rott (1999) examined the effect
of exposure frequency on intermediate learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition.
Results showed that six exposures produced significantly more vocabulary knowledge
than two or four exposures. CLIL allows dealing with a particular topic for a sustained
period of time providing recurring exposure to new vocabulary through clarifications,
justifications etc, with possible positive outcomes. Robinson (2005: 429) conducted a
study in order to identify the processes involved while developing L2 word knowledge
in subject-matter classrooms. Observation revealed frequent repetition of the key
vocabulary by the teachers. For instance, during two minutes of discourse the teacher
said the word “friction” 17 times.
Learners are able to understand and use a new word when they acquire the word’s
pronunciation, morphology, syntactic functions, meanings, collocations or association
with specific words, and the particular context in which the word may be used (Nation
2001). The various aspects of word knowledge are acquired throughout repeated
exposures to the word. On first exposure to the word, which could be an oral encounter,
the learner is likely to remember the sound or an aspect of the sound, such as the
number of syllables. When seeing the word in written form, the learner is likely to
remember the number of the word’s letters. Further exposures and use of the target
word can help building up and consolidating the word’s essential formal and semantic
features (Schmitt 2000).
Robinson (2005: 441) observed that the use of “linguistic frameworks” allows
incremental building of sentences. For instance, aiming to explain the word “buggy”, a
teacher provided the following three phrases based on the same linguistic framework:
Noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase plus new information and noun phrase. First,
the teacher says “A buggy is a very, very simple vehicle”. Then, this becomes “it’s a
very, very simple moving object”, and finally “so it’s going to be a very, very simple
moving four wheeled object or vehicle”. The repetition “… a very very simple…”
signals that new information is coming to be added to students’ developing concept of
the target word. In this way, the meaning of the key word is developed incrementally,
that is, new information is gradually added allowing the teacher to control the
grammatical complexity of the text. The consistent grammatical structure of the
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 465

statements decreases the amount of cognitive processing required, drawing attention to

the new information presented each time. These processes of simplification and
reduction of linguistic input enable clarification of meanings thereby strengthening the
links between word and meaning.
Teaching a subject through the medium of the L2 (CLIL) appears to provide
opportunities to the L2 student to activate background knowledge, learn vocabulary in
context, process actively the new words, recall target words, and be offered multiple
exposures to the new vocabulary.

5. Research methodology
An experimental pretest-posttest research design provided quantitative data about the
impact of the CLIL program on L2 vocabulary development. Five CLIL lessons were
video-taped allowing observation of the students’ reactions to learning vocabulary in
this environment.
It was hypothesised that students in the CLIL class would have significant gains in
L2 vocabulary knowledge outperforming their counterparts who were either not
involved in CLIL at all, or were exposed to the word list method.
The subjects involved in the experimental study were sixty 11-year-old – grade 6
learners who had been studying English in the state school for 3 years. Learners were
attending an urban and a suburban school in Cyprus. Three intact classes were chosen at
random and were assigned into one control and two experimental groups.
The control group included 21 students who were taught geography through the
medium of L1 Greek for five 40-minute lessons. The first experimental group (CLIL
group) involved 24 pupils who were taught geography through L2 English for five 40-
minute lessons, whereas the second experimental group (word list group) involved 15
children who were provided with the L1 equivalents of the target words throughout five
EFL lessons. Initially, the children of the three groups were administered L2 vocabulary
knowledge pre-tests and on completion of the unit the groups were administered the
same post-tests.
The vocabulary test required students to provide the L1 equivalent of 100 lexical
items given in L2. The items were related to content words of the Geography unit and
the maximum score was 100. Classroom observation data provided more details on the
process.
466 Maria Xanthou

6. Results
The ANOVA analysis of the pre-tests showed that there were no significant differences
between the three groups on vocabulary knowledge at the outset of the study (Table 1).

Table 1. ANOVA analysis of the pre-tests

df Mean Square F. Sig.
Between Groups 2 35.49 .402 .671
Within Groups 57 88.40
Total 59

The CLIL experimental group showed a significant difference p= .000 (< .05)
indicating a positive effect of the treatment on vocabulary knowledge (Table 2). The
mean difference was 25.50 indicating positive impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary
knowledge (Table 2).

Table 2. Mean difference of the CLIL group

Paired Differences t Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation
VocPre - VocPost 25.50 11.33 -11.019 .000

Paired sample t-tests were carried out in order to compare the pre-test – post-test
performance of the NonCLIL control group’s vocabulary knowledge. The comparison
exhibited a significant difference (.008) – (level of significance < .05) (Table 3).
However, the small mean difference exhibited by the control group was .90 which could
be attributed to out of school English language learning experiences. For instance,
subjects attended private EFL classes while participating in the experiment so the mean
increase could be attributed to L2 word learning outside school.

Table 3. Mean difference of the NonCLIL group

Paired Differences t Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation
VocPre - VocPost - .90 1.41 -2.939 .008
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 467

The word list group also exhibited a significant difference demonstrating a mean
difference of 8.66 which was not as great as the mean difference of the CLIL group
(25.50) (Table 4).

Table 4. Mean difference of the Word list group

Paired Differences t Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation
VocPre - VocPost -8.66 7.28 -4.606 .000

The CLIL experimental group outperformed the other two groups in post-test
vocabulary scores confirming the hypothesis (Table 5).

Table 5. ANOVA analysis of the post-tests

df Mean Square F. Sig.
Between Groups 2 3760.73 15.279 .000
Within Groups 57 246.14
Total 59

Observation data showed that CLIL provides opportunities for deep vocabulary
learning strengthening the relationship between the semantic and syntactic form of a
word and its morpho-phonological form. More specifically, CLIL activated students’
prior knowledge, e.g., they talked about the Amazon forests comparing them with
forests they knew. Students were provided with opportunities to learn vocabulary in
context, e.g., they learned the words ‘flora and fauna’ together with the words ‘species,
plants, jungle, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals’. Furthermore, active processing of
new vocabulary took place, e.g., pupils looked at maps and searched reading texts to
find information about topics and then had to decide whether some statements were true
or false, or fill in missing words. Learners were also allowed to recall target words, e.g.,
through memory games related to content comprehension and language focus activities.
In this learning context, students were provided with repeated exposures to the target
words. For example, during 2 minutes the teacher said the target word ‘tropical’ 7 times
(lesson 2). The use of linguistic frameworks by the teacher increased the amount of
exposures to the new vocabulary. An example taken from the data of this study is:
‘Plantation is a big field. It’s a very big field. It’s a very big cultivated field (cotton,
tobacco)’.
468 Maria Xanthou

7. Pedagogical Implications
In general, findings seem to substantiate the impact of CLIL on content and L2
vocabulary development. CLIL appears to provide increased opportunities for exposing
learners to L2 vocabulary knowledge in meaningful situations. Content-based
instruction seems to be an authentic approach to language (Celce-Murcia and Olshtein
2000). The positive impact of CLIL is shown in the vocabulary test results which
demonstrate that by attaching words to their surroundings, the likelihood of
comprehension and retention is increased (Schmitt and Schmitt 1995).

8. Limitations
The current research raises a number of issues requiring further investigation. To begin
with, variables such as habits, student motivation and personal exposure to other
language learning environments were not controlled in the present study. Certainly,
more rigorous research in the area of CLIL is required to corroborate and enhance the
present findings and to fill in gaps.
The small sample employed in the study imposes limitations on the interpretations.
Both space and time triangulations are required to ensure the validity of this study.
Also, the post-tests administered in this study examined subjects’ immediate
performance; a delayed test would show whether learning is retained or atrophied over
time. Re-testing participants is likely to shed light on the long-term benefits of CLIL.

9. Directions for further research

CLIL could be implemented in subjects other than Geography such as: History, Science
and Maths. This would safeguard the generalisability of findings. Moreover, the
experimental group’s productive vocabulary knowledge and not only their receptive
vocabulary could be explored. Equally pressing is the need to explore the optimal
conditions of language and content integrated programmes and the kind of instructional
strategies being used (Crandall 1993). An observation checklist may need to be
developed. Another vexing issue concerns assessment of content-based language
instruction. A reliable instrument needs to be developed in order to measure
performance.
Although definitive conclusions cannot yet be reached regarding the exact value of
CLIL in content and language learning, the results of the present study suggest that the
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 469

issue of learning content through a foreign language is a fertile ground for further
research.

10. Conclusion
The findings presented here may be clarified, added to or altered as the next stage of the
research unfolds. However, evidence so far shows that learning content through the
medium of the L2 may offer constant opportunities for activating background
knowledge, learning L2 vocabulary in context, promoting active processing of new
words, recalling target words, being provided with repeated exposures to target words
offering incremental learning, and, therefore, effective L2 vocabulary acquisition. The
results of this small-scale experiment provide support for learning vocabulary through
CLIL.
It seems reasonable to suggest that foreign language learning may proceed more
effectively when subject matters are taught by means of foreign language. Kaufman
(2004) advocates that the symbiosis of foreign language and content seems to be
promising in enhancing foreign language acquisition.

References
Celce-Murcia M. and E. Olshtain (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chapple L. and A. Curtis (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to film.
System 28: 419-433.
Coady J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of the research. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds),
Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273-290.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council,
The European Parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions.
Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. Brussels.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craig F.I.M. and E. Tulving (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 268-284.
Crandall J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
13: 111-126.
European Commission (2005). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe.
Brussels: The Eurydice European Unit. http://www.eurydice.org
Gramkow K. (2001). Teaching and learning in a second language. http://www.tl2l.nl/finpub.htm
470 Maria Xanthou

Jiang N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 24: 617-637.
Kaufman D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 24: 303-319.
Martin M.A., S.H. Martin and W. Ying (2002). The vocabulary self-collection strategy in the ESL
classroom. TESOL Journal 11/2: 34-35.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on
reading comprehension. Review of Education Research 53: 253-279.
Nation I.S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation I.S.P. and J. Coady (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (eds),
Vocabulary and language teaching. Essex: Longman Group Limited, 97-110.
Radford A., M. Atkinson, D. Britain, H. Clahsen and A. Spencer (1999). Linguistics. An introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson P. J. (2005). Teaching key vocabulary in Geography and Science classrooms: An analysis of
teachers’ practice with particular reference to EAL pupils’ learning. Language and Education 19/5:
428-445.
Rott S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary
acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 589-619.
Schleppegrell M. J., M. Achugar and T. Oteíza (2004). The grammar of History: Enhancing Content-
Based Instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38/1: 67-93.
Schmitt N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt N. and D. Schmitt (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical
suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal 49/2: 133-143.
Short D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture, and social studies.
TESOL Quarterly 28/3: 581-608.
Stahl S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behaviour
15/4: 33-50.
Stoller F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 24: 261-283.
Stoller F.L. and W. Grabe (1993). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1
vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (eds), Second language reading and
vocabulary learning. Norwood J: Ablex, 33-36.
Van de Craen P. (2001). Content- and language- integrated learning, culture of education and learning
theories. In M. Bax and J-W Zwart (eds), Reflections on language and language learning: In honour
of Arthur van Essen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209-220.
Van de Craen P., E. Ceuleers, and K. Mondt (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary
schools: Teaching Maths in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds), Diverse contexts –
converging goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1-14.
Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction 471

Wesche M.B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: research issues and outcomes. In
M. Krueger and F. Ryan (eds), Language and content. Discipline- and content-based approaches to
language study. Lexington, Massachusett: D.C. Heath and Company, 57-82.
Zimmerman C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An
empirical study. TESOL Quarterly 31/1: 121-138.